Taiatu v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 1787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-419-000021 [2014] NZHC 1787

BETWEEN
JOSHUA ANTHONY TAIATU

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 29 July 2014

Appearances:

M H McIvor for Appellant
T A Needham for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 30 July 2014 at 4.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………

TAIATU v R [2014] NZHC 1787 [30 July 2014]

Introduction

[1] Joshua Taiatu pleaded guilty in the District Court at Hamilton on one charge each of burglary, theft, reckless driving, unlawful taking and failing to stop and two charges of breaching release conditions. Judge Connell imposed a total sentence of
30½ months’ imprisonment.1 This included two years’ two months’ imprisonment

on the burglary charge. Mr Taiatu appeals his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive as a result of the Judge allowing a discount of only 13.33 per cent for his guilty plea on the burglary charge.

[2] The charges followed a series of events in January and February 2014: Mr Taiatu and an unknown associate broke into a residential address in Hamilton, stole a set of car keys and converted the vehicle in the garage. Nothing else was taken but there was damage to the garage door. A little over a week later Mr Taiatu put $50 worth of fuel into the stolen car and drove off without paying. Later the same day he was noticed by police speeding along State Highway 1. A lengthy police chase ensued, during which Mr Taiatu was posted at speeds in excess of 140 kph, including a speed of over 100 kph in a 50 kph speed zone. The breach of release conditions related to Mr Taiatu’s failure to notify his parole officer of a change of address following his release from prison in April 2013.

The sentencing

[3] The Judge took the burglary charge as the lead offence. Having noted the extent of Mr Taiatu’s previous convictions (10 for burglary and 55 for other types of dishonesty) and the effect on the complainants of the burglary, the Judge said:

[13] The burglary is the most troubling matter, and as the lead offence for you, it is having to take account of your past convictions that does not help. I look at this burglary and I consider the starting point is one of two years’ imprisonment. I intend to uplift that by four months to take account of your previous convictions and an uplift again for the fact that another crime was committed after the burglary, which is the conversion. I will deal with those concurrently but there is another month uplift to take account of the conversion and also factoring into that is the issue of totality of offending and totality of sentence.

[14] So you will understand that on that burglary today I am imposing a term of two-and-a-half years and I am going to reduce…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Taiatu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taiatu v The Queen [2014] NZHC 1787
Case: [2014] NZHC 1787
Decision Date: 30 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Taiatu appeals against his sentence for burglary and related charges, arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The High Court of New Zealand considered this appeal and examined whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate. The key issue was whether the discount for Taiatu's guilty plea on the burglary charge was adequate, given the circumstances. The District Court had imposed a sentence of two years and two months for the burglary charge, with a discount of only 13.33 per cent for the guilty plea. Taiatu's counsel argued that the discount was too low, given that a 25 per cent discount was more typical. The Crown submitted that the circumstances of the burglary justified a lower discount and that the overall sentence was within the appropriate range. The Court found that the discount of 13.33 per cent was well below what could reasonably have been expected, and was inconsistent with the Judge's approach to the other charges. The Court also found that the starting point for the burglary sentence was higher than it should have been, due to the Judge's erroneous reliance on a $3,000 loss resulting from the burglary. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of two years and two months on the burglary charge with a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The sentences for the other charges, as well as the disqualification for reckless driving and the reparation order, remained unchanged.

Orders